10% refund question

[AcmeSalesRep]

Yawn...

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
48.825% of the time you double up; 51.175% of the time, you end up with 10% of your bet. The EV is +$2.76.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually you will win 43.31% of the time, you'll tie 8.8% of the time and lose 47.89% of the time. Now do you see why you are mistaken and how you made your math error? These percentages still allow for blackjack, doubling and splitting. So in your single hand scenario for your max bet the odds are even worse.


It should be aparrent (even to you) why the 10% rebate on your total session losses (yes even a session consisting of one hand) is -EV.


Jimbo

[yoshi_yoshi]

And despite all your calculations the only thing I can agree with is that getting 10% of your losses back makes it less -EV but never +EV. After all if you end up losing money on your session you still lost. How can losing ever be +EV without a jackpot?

Jimbo
__

Hi, I just stumbled upon this thread....

Consider the casino giving you back 100% of your losses. You play 100 hands. That is clearly +EV right? Consider normally, where the casino gives you back 0% of your losses. You play 100 hands. That is clearly -EV. So there must be a magical percentage for our example, 100 hands, that is the crossover between + and - EV. I haven't thought about any of the math, but I don't know how you can be sure where 10% stands with regards to that magical #, especially since you don't even have the number of hands we are playing.

[Jimbo]

Yoshi,

When I play craps or blackjack in a Vegas Casino I get back 40% of my projected losses in comps. Yet that doesn't make the casino table games +EV. So to answer your question as to where the percentage lays I know it must be greater than 40%. Right? Keep in mind I get that whether I win or lose.

[yoshi_yoshi]

[ QUOTE ]
Yoshi,

When I play craps or blackjack in a Vegas Casino I get back 40% of my projected losses in comps. Yet that doesn't make the casino table games +EV. So to answer your question as to where the percentage lays I know it must be greater than 40%. Right? Keep in mind I get that whether I win or lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Jimbo, sure, if you play enough then 40% rebate will still be -EV. I'm just saying that how much rebate you need to make it a breakeven game depends on how many hands you plan to play there during each rebate period. If you play infinite hands per rebate period, the rebate you need approaches 100%. If you play one hand per rebate period, the % rebate you need should be pretty low, definitely lower than 10%, as some people have calculated above.

So for your situation, (I am guessing that) the casino will make sure you play too many hands for 40% rebate to make you +EV. A player that plays a couple hands a month is surely not going to get the same rebate a regular player like yourself would.

So to summarize, my only real point is that if you play below a certain number of hands per rebate period at 10% rebate, you will be a +EV player. I hope we can all agree on that.

[AcmeSalesRep]

[ QUOTE ]
So to summarize, my only real point is that if you play below a certain number of hands per rebate period at 10% rebate, you will be a +EV player. I hope we can all agree on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prett much everyone BUT Jimbo can agree on this...

Acme

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
48.825% of the time you double up; 51.175% of the time, you end up with 10% of your bet. The EV is +$2.76.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually you will win 43.31% of the time, you'll tie 8.8% of the time and lose 47.89% of the time. Now do you see why you are mistaken and how you made your math error? These percentages still allow for blackjack, doubling and splitting. So in your single hand scenario for your max bet the odds are even worse.


It should be aparrent (even to you) why the 10% rebate on your total session losses (yes even a session consisting of one hand) is -EV.


Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, assuming your numbers are correct, and that they somehow encompass doubling / splitting / getting a blackjack (I don't see how they could, but whatever), if we bet $100 we would get $200 back 43.31% of the time, $100 back 8.8% of the time, and $10 back 47.89% of the time.

(.4331 * 200) + (.088 * 100) + (.4789 * 10) = 100.199

This is still +EV, and doesn't account for blackjack payouts or doubles, etc.

[AcmeSalesRep]

I ignore Jimbo, but another person's text has his text in it...and it is a reply to one of my posts...so I guess I should acknowledge it... While this falls as a reply to another poster, it is really a reply to Jimbo.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
48.825% of the time you double up; 51.175% of the time, you end up with 10% of your bet. The EV is +$2.76.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually you will win 43.31% of the time, you'll tie 8.8% of the time and lose 47.89% of the time. Now do you see why you are mistaken and how you made your math error? These percentages still allow for blackjack, doubling and splitting. So in your single hand scenario for your max bet the odds are even worse.


It should be aparrent (even to you) why the 10% rebate on your total session losses (yes even a session consisting of one hand) is -EV.


Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]


I'll accept your numbers. But they do not get worse for the no double/split possibility. In fact, the win/loss rate actually IMPROVES if you never double. (Since you can take a second card when you double against a high card and get an A, your chances of winning improve by not doubling; but your EV suffers because you are not getting extra money out there when you are better than 50/50 to win.)

So, we will accept your numbers and say you can never double or split AND you only get paid even money on a blackjack...and it STILL comes out slightly +EV! (This has already been shown, so I will not bother showing it again.)

Add in the (correct) 3:2 payout on blackjacks and the bonus becomes even better. Approximately 4.7% of the time, you will be dealt a blackjack. In approximately 4.7% of *those* cases, the dealer will also have BJ and you push (this is included in the 8.8% of the time you mention as being pushes).

So adjusting your numbers to allow the 3:2 payoff on BJ, you get something very close to:

4.47% of the time you win 3:2
38.84% of the time you win even money
8.8% of the time you push
47.89% of the time you lose

Adding in the payouts...on a $100 bet with no doubles/splits:
4.47% of the time you end up with $250
38.84% of the time you end up with $200
8.8% of the time you end up with $100 (and can start over)
47.89% of the time you end up with $10

Doing the math, the EV comes to $2.44. So the offer is clearly +EV. And if allow yourself to split and/or double, your EV will climb a bit higher than this. (Also notice that the degree to which it is +EV is close to my earlier rough calculation of $2.76.)

Somehow I expect you will continue to claim you are correct...after all, there is no reason to let the math get in your way!

Acme